Amaleq13

Sorry this is piecemeal but the people I work for have this bizarre idea that I have to actually do stuff to justify my paycheck. Unreasonable bastards!


Zindler's Top Four reasons to suspect the Baptist passages in Josephus are interpolations:

1) Josephus clearly considered Macherus to be under the control of Aretas but the JBap passage has Herod sending JBap to Macherus to be executed while Herod was fighting with Aretas.

2) Herod's "bad end" is attributed to his killing of the Baptist while, elsewhere, Josephus attibutes it to "listening to a woman's frivolous chatter".

3) The JBap passage is not repeated during any of the Herod commentary in War of the Jews

4) JBap is not listed in an ancient Greek table of contents for Josehus but is listed in a later Latin version.

He suggests that the text reads smoothly with the JBap passage removed but acknowledges that, given the apparent "Josephan" flavor, it is possible to understand it as a normal Josephus digression.

Doctor X

"Reasonable" ploy. . . .

In all honesty, while scholars can consider one theory or reconstruction better than another, they really do not have enough evidence to make a firm conclusion. They have to allow for this doubt. Thus:

Exactly. Again, perhaps "embarrassment" is the wrong word because it implies more than what may have happened. Assuming the case above is "the Truth" [Pat. Pend.--Ed.] Mk could just be sharing a joke with his audience--"See, even their leader subordinated himself." However, I do not believe that was the case because while Mk does subordinate him, he does not do it to the extent of, say, a Jn. Furthermore, since he takes every opportunity to squish other "opponents"--Jews and the disciples--I would think he would have "hammered the point home, so to write.

Who knows? If you take Vork's direction, then Mk merely needed an "anointer"--someone to announce--made sure he was not seen as granting power to Junior, and created the whole thing. Suggestion of a tradition of J the B prior to or potentially independent of Mk's story would add credence that it was at least a known tradition.

Again, who knows? I state that because some consider the group less a preserver of a "religion"--Jewish--than a culture. You probably cannot separate one from the other. However, I doubt the Pillars saw him as a divine son of god or anything like that.

It could be read a number of ways. Mk's treatment of Rock-Head and the Merry Men reminded me of Friedman's characterization of the Aaronites refashioning of Moses--they cannot write him out of the myth because he is too well know, particularly with a rival group that claims lineage from him. They can ry to take him down. Similarly, the Mosaic groups kick Aaron around, but they cannot have YHWH squish him.

So, Mk may have had to contend with his audience knowing about the disciples. I think that is very likely given his portrayal. So . . . it would seem logical that Junior would have to appear to them. . .

. . . but in Mk he does not. He says he will, but he never actually appears to them.

Oh indeed, his audience can always congratulate itself that it is the "in" group with the "Truth" while the highfalootin' disciples--and whoever is left, are "out."

On Josephus--I am yet to be convinced that any of the references to Junior, or J the B are anything but interpolations. If they were so important that he bothered to mention them, you would think he would write more!

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I just noticed that I wrote "only" instead of "old" as in: Ah, the old "reasonable ploy!". Makes me crazy, mistakes like that. But that is why the medication is so important.

Mark also makes it clear that he respects John's reputation even while he is "putting him in his place" with regard to Jesus and the Kingdom of God. I don't get the sense that Mark is dealing with actual followers of John so much as an established reputation among his audience. Perhaps Mark is writing to folks who previously considered JBap to be the Messiah?

Mark seems to me to clearly assume his audience knows who JBap is and knows his reputation as a prophet. Otherwise, what sense does it make to claim that the Pharisees were too scared to deny that John's baptism was of God?

How do you think they saw him?

He also says they will happen in Galilee. Is this a rejection/denial of the Jerusalem group?

Does Mark have to contend with knowledge of the disciples or knowledge of the Pillars?

Doctor X

I would agree with the latter as well. I do not know if his audience would be previous J the B groupies because he does not go after J the B severely. Jn, however, may have given such things as his J the B stating that if any of his followers say they should follow him over Junior they are wrong. The only problem with that is that Jn is so late I would think if some remnant of the J the B group(s) bothered his group something would have survived from them.

I also agree that Mk assumes his audience knows the reputation or tradition of J the B.

Insufficient data to render a conclusion, Dave. Would you like to play a game of chess? Would you like to take a space walk?

I do not know because I do not know how much Mk made up. For example, the whole "they did not know Junior's True Nature" could just be polemic like "Catholics ain't Christians." If not, it seemed popular enough--Jn, Mt, Lk run with it--that they did not consider the historical Junior divine as in a son of a deity. I doubt they would have seen him as Paul did.

If a historical Junior existed, we really do not know anything about him. This is why I started jumping on Vinnie about "facts."

I think so. I would have to review it, but I believe Mk screws up the geography of Galilee, so scholars do not feel he came from there or addressed an audience from there. However, it would detract from a group that, apparently, stayed in Jerusalem or claimed origins in Jerusalem. Of course, the group Mk was a part of may have had its origins or substantial origins in Galilee.

Methinks the disciples represent the Pillars--since Rock-Head is one of them--and whatever was the "established" or "traditional" group. We really do not know what was left after the Roman Squishing of Jerusalem. Mk seems to imply quite clearly that the disciples are not part of the "in" group. He writes polemic like any outside cult leader--"they do not preach the True word," "they have stray'd and waver'd from Da Path."

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

Crap.

Double crap.

I have to admit that your persistent reasonableness in recognizing the absence of firm evidence is a refreshing change from the dogmatic certainty implied by the arguments of my typical "opponents". The truth of it is annoying as hell but that isn't your fault.

If we assume Mark as written after the fall of Jerusalem and in Rome, how much freedom would the author have had in depicting the "pillars" as disciples if it wasn't known (assumed?) to be true by his audience? This isn't something believers in Rome would have obtained from Paul's letters, for example, but I'm trying to determine if Mark's depiction carries the same implication of an existing belief in his audience as the reputation of JBap apparently did. In other words, we've determined that Mark had to say nice things about the Baptist because his audience believed nice things about him. Can we say the same is true of his identification of the "pillars" as Disciples of the living Jesus? If so, that would appear to challenge the mythicist claim that this is a narrative fiction created by the author.

Doctor X

Ameleq13:

Well one has to be honest about it. I "like" the "Gospel According to Name-Withheld"--a mentor"--who wonders if Junior threatened to destroy the temple, it failed, a riot ensued, and Romans rounded people up. "Judas" was a follower who saw his leader exposed as a fraud and willingly turned "state's evidence." Peter had escaped and labored under the suspicion of "denying" the "Imperious Leader."

Evidence? It merely "fits" the traditions we have.

However, while the book on the "Beloved Son" which I used when I hammer'd everyone on child sacrifice--"Gimme that OLD TIME RELIGON!"--opin'd that "Judas" is--damn! I should bring the references--an allusion to the betrayal of Joseph. Jon Levenson sees cycles of betrayal or attempts to squish the "beloved son" who, incidentally, is not the first born. Mk may have picked up on that.

So . . . then . . . Judas becomes a fiction.

I think we have to since Mk predicts it, unless one wishes to argue the prediction is an interpolation. Scholars like Howard Clark Kee try to argue an earlier date--and deny any Hellenistic influences!!--because, frankly, that would preserve the "promise" that the text has historical "kernals." The problem with this was seen even by them--prophecy--is specific only when after the fact! As others have noted--sorry!--Junior predicted his return and it NEVER HAPPENED. So . . . he can predict the fall of Jerusalem . . . but not when he gets back? Does he get lost? Maybe he stopped for a bite.

So some scholars tried to keep it "just before" the Fall--"hey, anyone could see the Romans were getting pissy!"--because this again promises it may preserve "historical material."

Unfortunately, I think the evidence speaks otherwise, particularly given how Mk screws up his depictions of Judaism.

I do not think anyone argues he was in Rome. Mack argues for southern Syria--if memory serves me correctly. Certainly the fact that Mk screws up geography, traditions, and feels the need to translate the few Aramaic statements he throws in suggests he was not writing from the smoking ruins of Jerusalem! Rome, methinks it a bit far. However, more to your point, I think Mk had all the freedom he wanted--"all you need for a founding figure is a name and a place." This applies to Peter and the Merry Men.

I do think that some traditions he picked up on--"Hey, did you know that Rock denied the Imperious Leader?!! HA!HA!HA!" However, Mk clearly does not like them or what he thought they stood for. It is speculation as to "what" remained or was passed down from the "Pillars."

So, then, Mk could have made those traditions up as well. I would have to check my Q to see if it likes to kick the idiots as well--then we assume that Mk had no knowledge of Q which some Q Fans deny!

Maybe I am committing a bit of eisegesis, but Paul's Mein Kampf--"Galatians"--does not present the clowns in a very positive light. It may have been hard for Paul to come out in a letter condemning the guys--who knows what he said in public/private?

What? That they were embarrassed? [Stop that!--Ed.] You could be right. I can imagine an audience wanting to "know the story about" something. Clearly Mk makes things up--he repeats a miracle to demonstrate how stupid the disciples are. I suppose someone could have asked, "Hey, tell us about that miracle he had to repeat twice!"

The problem is, as above, figuring out how much a Mk made up and how much was a response to a tradition. The "embarrassing" argument--legitimately--suggests that certain traditions required attention--execution, threat to destroy Temple, et cetera. The mistake an "embarrassing" guy makes is trying to declare an "embarrassing tradtion" a "fact." It may be the case, but it is not proven.

Judas is an example of that. "Why make up a Judas?" Someone betrays Junior? CLEARLY it must have happened . . . until one realizes that betrayal is a common element in beloved son--great guy stories!

Okay . . . I must admit I am not totally convinced by the more extreme mythicists because for them to be correct it requires one of those JFKesque conspiracies. Go ahead and flush Josephus and others as Christian interpolations--no problem. Paul's comment on James is a problem. I have had some posters quibble about "brother" but I remained unconvinced.

So, I lean to the existence of a Junior and His Merry Men--I just cannot tell you what the fuck he said or did!! I can only assume Mk did not like whatever remained/survived when he started writing . . . and . . . it seems "reasonable" that the disciples were more "secular"--Junior is not a "god-man."

However, Mk could have made up a lot of it--like the repeated miracle or the transifiguration. Scholars argue for a "passion source" Mk must have used . . . okay . . . though Mack argues that this did not have to be so.

Again, why this is all so interesting.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

If Jesus was crucified, that seems to require that we assume he was convicted of sedition. Elsewhere, however, Vinnie has suggested that this is not necessarily so. I haven't read his explanation yet for what other charges Jesus might have obtained this punishment but my understanding has been that it was reserved for sedition and (via Tortie Cat's post) murder of a Roman citizen.

I've read arguments suggesting that the Gospels contain hints of this more traditional messianic program (i.e. Temple disruption and ear removal at the arrest). Why else would J's followers be armed and why else would the Romans send so many troops to capture J?

OT Joseph as played by Donny Osmond?

Hence the brothers?

Don't the Gospels connect the betrayal of Judas to a specific OT passage?

Judas = personification of Jews = the Jews betrayed Jesus

I was working from the "traditional" view. You are correct that modern scholarship favors Syria. In fact, aren't Mt and Lk both thought to have been written in Syria (Antioch?)?

More freedom to fabricate means less reason to assume certain details are "forced" by prior tradition, doesn't it?

Q doesn't portray the disciples as failing to understand Jesus. I think Mark has knowledge of the "movement" though not necessarily a written source or at least not the one shared by Mt/Lk.

Q also doesn't contain any suggestion that the death of Jesus (not explicitly described but Crossan considers it implied) held any special significance. As far as we can tell from the reconstructed text, his death was considered no different from the potential death all the prophets of the coming Kingdom allegedly faced.

Jerusalem is specifically condemned for "killing the prophets". However, as several scholars have pointed out, there doesn't appear to be any historical (including the OT) basis for this claim prior to NT descriptions of Jesus, Stephen, and James. Is Q specifically referring to the killing of Kingdom of God prophets? Jesus specifically? If so, they only specify stoning as the method of execution. That would actually fit better with Paul's reference to Jesus being a "curse" because he was "hung on a tree" but not with the greater number of crucifixion references he makes. Unless, of course, those references can be understood as essentially no different from "hanging on a tree".

A stoned (not in the good way) Jesus removes the sedition angle but...

I was referring to Paul not identifying the "pillars" as disciples. I think he does do a pretty good job in Galatians of establishing what he thinks of the "pillars" and their alleged "reputation".

This establishes a pre-Mk tradition of a critical view of guys named "Peter", "James", and "John" involved in a Jesus-group in Jerusalem.

What I was trying to get at with my comparison between the Pillars=Disciples and JBap's good reputation is that it would appear that Mark is "forced" to describe JBap positively because his good reputation was known. Given the above "tradition" from Paul, we could also assume he was "forced" to describe the Pillars in a less-than-positive light. But I'm not sure we can say the same about the Pillars=Disciples claim. Do we have any reason to conclude that Mk's audience knew of a tradition where the Big Three from Jerusalem were also disciples of the living Jesus? I don't think we do.

Don't the Gospels connect Judas' betrayal with a specific Psalm?

Judas = personification of Jews = the Jews betrayed Jesus

Given the evidence of interpolation of this very phrase into Josephus, I have to doubt its authenticity. The "lost" reference apparently had "James the Just" as the "brother of Jesus" but in the context of Josephus blaming the destruction of Jerusalem on the murder of James. Since we know he really blamed the rebellion movement (starting with Judas the Galilean), this "lost" reference must have been an interpolation. The extant reference to James (no "Just") as the "brother of Jesus" is within a completely different context. Is it reasonable to assume that Hegesippus and Origen had copies of Josephus with two different depictions of the death of James? It seems to me that whoever deleted the earlier reference decided to retain the James = the brother of Jesus reference and simply moved it to a new location. That Photius, writing in the 9th century, apparently has a copy of Josephus that read "James, the brother of the Lord" drags Paul's reference into the picture. I think the phrase in Paul is better understood as a marginal gloss incorporated into the text. It certainly doesn't seem consistent with his tendency to downplay the reputation and influence of the Pillars.

I also have yet to see a defense of the claim that it is unlikely that, assuming the passage to be genuine, Paul could have meant "God" rather than "Jesus" when he used "Lord". Muller offered this objection but he didn't respond when I asked for a basis. I assume he got distracted by other things but I haven't been able to find anything on his website to support this view. He claims that this would not be something a Jew would grant as a title.

Doctor X

Indeed. If the Romans squished him they squished him because it served their purpose--broke their law, pissed off people they needed, et cetera. I tend to agree that "blame da Jews" is polemic done later--cannot blame the guys in power, and it gives you a chance to stick it to them. What I love about the stories is that "da Jews" are able to have him "brought to" them and can even pay off a crowd to demand his execution . . . but they cannot just assassinate him? Unrealistic, of course!

Interesting, I had always wondered about the cutting off of the ear--kind of hard to do, actually, without taking off a person's head/face.

I agree with that. Of course, that does not mean a "real Judas" did not "betray" a historical Junior at some point. However, the fact that Lk feels free to change his death from a suicide--which might be enobling--to exploding demonstrates how much respect they had for "tradition." More on that below.

I would have to look that up. I reviewed Mack's summary of the placement of Mk and it seemed to make sense.

Not at all. Return to the Moses versus Aaron debate. Neither side could get rid of the opposition's hero, but they sure as hell could get creative with denegrating them. Moses has to wear a veil or Aaron is responsible for blasphemy. Now, if the writer LIKED the tradition--say Rock-Head proving a coward--he could have a lot of fun with it. Otherwise, the tradition could simply be a "Hey? Didn't the Romans hang him up for rogering a couple of thousand boys?" "NO! It was the Jews . . . and . . . it was Herod who slaughtered the innocents . . . yes. . . ."

Seriously, we have no way of telling how "formed" a tradition a writer used/responded to was. We can assume Mt and Lk did not make up a baptism because they borrow from Mk, of course. How do we know how much Mk made up?

Whether or not Mk knew of Q or not seems to be controversial. I really do not know, personally. I think you are correct about the death. Mk makes it a "big thing" only in that it is what a follower should expect--you follow, you may die like Junior. Certainly the whole "died for our sins" stuff comes much later--perhaps when the need to "explain" a death without a real resurrection crop'd up.

If we believe the reconstructions scholars advocate and are summarized in Mack's books, there are a whole bunch of groups that spring up fairly early. For whatever reason, they probably do not like the "in group" of Jerusalem. It makes sense for Mk to be against them. Now, is he perpetuating a tradition he likes? He really goes after them which makes me suspect that he had a current "problem" with them--tradition, teachings, or actual remnants of the group. Or, as a "founding text" for his group, it simply broke free of older traditions.

Who knows? One criticism of Josephus is if he found these guys interesting enough to write about, why did he not write more on them? I particularly love the "if man he may be called" obsequious passage! Okay . . . Joe . . . you discovered a supernatural entity and then drop him as a subject.

With Paul, he may have simply recognized a reality--he was Junior's Bro. It may even gave him some authority to his audience while he undercut them. Or, as you say, it could have been added. As with Mk, it seems a tradition of siblings was not a major problem--heck I have had fundamentalists scream that "he had no siblings!" because, even for a "Protestant," Mary with the Cherry having sex is just too icky a concept!

Of course, the writers are not very interested in the "personal life." Mk refers to his family as part of a parrable lesson--thus it is probably his creation or stolen from one of those magical "sources" scholars "find."

Which is why, as another topic raises, there is no concensus. Let us say the Galatians reference is an interpolation. I still think it a bit too much of a "conspiracy" to believe NO ONE exited and it is "all myth." However, take Aesclapius . . . please. Did he exist? He had enough followers. One odd thing is I would expect if that was the case the writings would be even later to give time for the myths and traditions to develop, but that is hardly an argument. Even with a historical Junior, the myths around him did develop quickly.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Have you read Price yet?

Amaleq13

Too many too quickly, IMHO, to have been inspired by a single human who doesn't even show up as a blip outside Christian texts. Certainly too many too quickly given Paul's Jesus who had "no reputation".

I would be much more inclined to accept this if Paul had used the name "Jesus" rather than the title "Lord". This is reserved exclusively for the Risen Christ so that means Paul called James "the brother of the Risen Christ". That doesn't seem consistent with Paul's veneration of the Risen Christ in opposition to "fleshly" concerns.

How about a "conspiracy" to oppose Marcion's heretical depiction of Jesus descending from heaven as an adult human?